Many people I speak to in regards to evolution are under the impression that Charles Darwin was a scientist. This is incorrect.

Darwin had a degree in theology, which is a degree in the study of religion.But he had no degree at all in the scientific field. This fits well with the fact that evolution is not science but a religion. It would seem that he was proficient in the field of religion, so much he was able to create the basis for others to construct his original ideas into a religion.

There are really several perspectives from which a conclusion might be drawn from this. One is the one you chose: that Darwin's ideas emerged as a result of his theological studies. Another is that they did so despite them. A third (and the one I find most reasonable) is that no significant conclusion can be drawn, one way or the other, from the fact that Darwin studied theology.

Darwin is also reported to have played billiards, and cricket. On that basis, would you consider evolution a sport?

This is funny. So if we can determine something from education, or non-education. From the responses here, I could also say that everthing h*vind says is correct as well. For what would be different in H*vinds education, and all that is said about, than Darwins?

Did Darwin go to an accredited school?
And were his credentials what they should be for what he did?
And did the education he recieved make him any more qualified to make the theory that he did?
Or, was it because he read a certain book, which had a certain view, and was able to extend that view to something more workable, but yet he was never qualified to do such a thing.

This may explain why alot of hoax's have come from his theory. For what everyone blames h*vind for, also looks like Darwin. Hmmm.

This is funny. So if we can determine something from education, or non-education. From the responses here, I could also say that everthing h*vind says is correct as well. For what would be different in H*vinds education, and all that is said about, than Darwins?

We judge Darwins (and H*vinds) ideas by how well they stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Did Darwin go to an accredited school?And were his credentials what they should be for what he did?And did the education he recieved make him any more qualified to make the theory that he did?

There wasn't much in the way of formalized scientific training in Darwins day, and many of the early scientists were largely self-trained. For example, Charles Lyell (whose book "Prinicples of Geology" established the modern science of geology) was educated as a lawyer.

Even today, there are some great scientists who are largely self-taught (like the paleontologist John Horner).

Or, was it because he read a certain book, which had a certain view, and was able to extend that view to something more workable, but yet he was never qualified to do such a thing.

All scientists depend, in part, on work done by others before them. Wasn't it Newton who said that he had seen further than others, because he had "stood on the shoulders of giants"?

This may explain why alot of hoax's have come from his theory. For what everyone blames h*vind for, also looks like Darwin. Hmmm.

Darwins basic idea is accepted by 99.9% of scientists because it has "passed the tests". H*vinds ideas are not accepted because they have failed the tests.

Many people I speak to in regards to evolution are under the impression that Charles Darwin was a scientist. This is incorrect.

Quite correct, However one need not be a official scientist to work and do research in a scientific way. The scientific method is after all, vary simple.

The best example I can think of is the Wright brothers, neither of them scientist, but they produced some of the best science ever.

As for Darwin, before he published Ã¢â‚¬Å“origin of species" he worked for years on barnacles, if you doubt his ability as a naturalist, and to report his finding with the best of the scientist of his day, read the book Ã¢â‚¬Å“DarwinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s BarnaclesÃ¢â‚¬Â. It might change your opinion of his ability.

There are really several perspectives from which a conclusion might be drawn from this. One is the one you chose: that Darwin's ideas emerged as a result of his theological studies. Another is that they did so despite them. A third (and the one I find most reasonable) is that no significant conclusion can be drawn, one way or the other, from the fact that Darwin studied theology.

Darwin is also reported to have played billiards, and cricket. On that basis, would you consider evolution a sport?

Either you ducked or that last post of mine shot right over your head.In reply to your post: No, but one could say he might have known a little about billiards or other games, but that fact that he plays these and still has no degree in a science field still shows he has no science knowledge.

My link says his masters and PhD are from a diploma mill; his BA/BS is probably legit.

But that's irrelevant to my point.

As to why to chose to get his advanced degrees from a diploma mill, rather than investing the time and effort in getting legitimate degrees... well, that would only be speculation on my part.

I like to listen to alot of H*vinds material, he admits openly that his Ph.D is not accredited, however he is very proud of it.I hear many people say some bad things about Kent h*vind, he is not perfect.None of us are, but the comparison of people really boils down to the condition of the soul, he is saved. And teaches creation to many people who become saved due to his work.

In my opinion, Kent h*vind is a great creationist, does he have some falts? yes, we all do. Its a lame argument to try to compare h*vind as not having an accredited degree to Darwin not having a degree in science, because the whole idea of evolution was 99% put on the map due to him. A man who was not a scientist coming up with an idea that was imagined up into a religion disguised as science.

Maybe Kent H*vinds Ph.D isn't accredited, but there are countless other creationist scientists who do have accredited Ph.D's, why choose h*vind to talk about?Oh ok, because he does not have an accredited Ph.D and thats convenient for evolutionists to use.

But as ADMIN3 said, this is off topic, so I apologize for putting in my 2 cents.My point is, no need to try to compare h*vind to Darwin, h*vind is way out of Darwins league accredited Ph.D or not.

A high school drop out who believes the Genesis account of creation has 10 times more common sense than a Ph.D evolutionary scientist.

Many people I speak to in regards to evolution are under the impression that Charles Darwin was a scientist. This is incorrect.

No, he was a scientist. A scientist is someone who theorizes natural mechanisms for observed natural phenomena using the scientific method. This is all that is required. You do not have to have a degree in science to be a scientist.

Darwin had a degree in theology, which is a degree in the study of religion.But he had no degree at all in the scientific field. This fits well with the fact that evolution is not science but a religion.

Then why is there no mention of the supernatural in any of his scientific works? Why does he offer testable hypotheses and potential falsifications for all of his theories? Theology is taken on faith (no evidence required) and deals with the supernatural. If Darwin was trying to start a religion he did a poor job of it.

It would seem that he was proficient in the field of religion, so much he was able to create the basis for others to construct his original ideas into a religion.

There is no doubt that atheists have taken his theory to support their beliefs. However, many theistic evolutionists also look at evolution as the work of God. It would seem that evolution is areligious and can be adopted by anyone regardless of their religious beliefs, much like any other scientific theory.

No, he was a scientist.Ã‚Â A scientist is someone who theorizes natural mechanisms for observed natural phenomena using the scientific method.Ã‚Â This is all that is required.Ã‚Â You do not have to have a degree in science to be a scientist.Then why is there no mention of the supernatural in any of his scientific works?Ã‚Â Why does he offer testable hypotheses and potential falsifications for all of his theories?Ã‚Â Theology is taken on faith (no evidence required) and deals with the supernatural.Ã‚Â If Darwin was trying to start a religion he did a poor job of it.There is no doubt that atheists have taken his theory to support their beliefs.Ã‚Â However, many theistic evolutionists also look at evolution as the work of God.Ã‚Â It would seem that evolution is areligious and can be adopted by anyone regardless of their religious beliefs, much like any other scientific theory.

Darwin was not trying to start a religion, he himself in many quotes states many of the problems with evolution and the whole hypothesis, its atheists who wanted so badly to have anything else as an excuse to deny God, no matter how rediculous, that made it into a religion. Evolutionists in my opinion know inside that the whole idea of evolution is untrue, and the ones who don't are simply brainwashed and mislead.

Evolution is in no way related to the works of God, for it is merely a fallible imagined idea, that came to be by a man doubting in faith.

Darwin had no degree in science and this shows with ideas like evolution being born.

Darwin was not trying to start a religion, he himself in many quotes states many of the problems with evolution and the whole hypothesis, its atheists who wanted so badly to have anything else as an excuse to deny God, no matter how rediculous, that made it into a religion. Evolutionists in my opinion know inside that the whole idea of evolution is untrue, and the ones who don't are simply brainwashed and mislead.

Evolution is in no way related to the works of God, for it is merely a fallible imagined idea, that came to be by a man doubting in faith.

Darwin had no degree in science and this shows with ideas like evolution being born.

Well we are high jacking the thread with this talk about h*vind. So maybe we better get back to the subject of the o.p.

Well, if the op person don't mind then maybe not.

Let's try and keep this civil guys. I know h*vind is very much hated by many, but keep the attitudes in check. I will allow thread to continue because the op. person does not seem to mind. But if it gets out of hand, I will close it.

WRT to the rest of your post, you still haven't provided any evidence that evolution is a religion, only unsupported assertions.

I posted this in another thread, but it bears repeating....

It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religionÃ¢â‚¬â€a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today

The only proof evolution is a religion thats needed is, its not a proven fact.How hard to grasp is that? Its believed without impiracle proof and totally on the presupposition that there is no God.

Firstly, every time you ask for proof for a theory it demonstrates that you don't understand how science is done. No theory is every proven, only further supported by new evidence. No theory is ever taken as fact, all theories are tentative and could be falsified in the future. Evolution, just like every other theory in science, is a tentative theory. Evolution will never be proven, only supported by new evidence. As more and more evidence supports the theory the tentativity of the theory is reduced but never completely removed.

Secondly, science doesn't give a hoot about the existence or non-existence of God. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. Evolution takes the data from the Earth and living organisms, period. Why should science go any further? When researching drugs should we use witch doctors as rememdies? Should we use ouiji boards to predict weather patterns?

Thirdly, there is plenty of empirical evidence. www.talkorigins.org is a great place to start. Why this claim keeps coming up is beyond me. It seems that in order to be a creationist it requires ignoring all of the scientific discoveries made in biology for the last 150 years. If you want to bury your head in the sand, go ahead, but don't project this attitude on others.

Firstly, every time you ask for proof for a theory it demonstrates that you don't understand how science is done. No theory is every proven, only further supported by new evidence. No theory is ever taken as fact, all theories are tentative and could be falsified in the future. Evolution, just like every other theory in science, is a tentative theory. Evolution will never be proven, only supported by new evidence. As more and more evidence supports the theory the tentativity of the theory is reduced but never completely removed.

Secondly, science doesn't give a hoot about the existence or non-existence of God. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. Evolution takes the data from the Earth and living organisms, period. Why should science go any further? When researching drugs should we use witch doctors as rememdies? Should we use ouiji boards to predict weather patterns?

Thirdly, there is plenty of empirical evidence. www.talkorigins.org is a great place to start. Why this claim keeps coming up is beyond me. It seems that in order to be a creationist it requires ignoring all of the scientific discoveries made in biology for the last 150 years. If you want to bury your head in the sand, go ahead, but don't project this attitude on others.

I understand exactly how real science is done, It starts out with a presupposition, which causes people to interpret evidence differently, facts can sometimes be brought about through testing and observing.

Evolution can't be tested because you can't test time or the past. The fact that working mechanisms that occur on Earth and within life forms is proof of a God and of creation.Evolution can't be observed because it never occurs.

It would be more correct for you to say some scientists don't give a hoot about whether God is real or not if you were going to say something along those lines.

Many creationists Ph.D scientists give a big hoot. Proof of creation is the creation itself.My head is far from being burried in the sand, it appear yours knows the place well though.